Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

If you're talking about Sampras, bear in mind that the US Open plays its semifinal the day before the final. It's not easy on any player but especially older players like Sampras was. Sampras also has that disease that affects his stamina. So the losses in the finals to Safin and Hewitt while a credit to both of them for winning, the one sided losses may be due to the tough schedule.

Click to expand...

I wasn't taking away any credit from Sampras, I think he was impressive at both USO 2000 & 2001.

I can't imagine a top player losing to a 40 years old player today. Federer during his prime and now Nole would never lose to a 40 years old player at big stage(I'm not talking about exo), and they don't even have to play their best.

I wouldn't say that, except for 1959. In 1958 he had a lot of troubles, he was winning the tour by an 8 matches margin, and he lost it by a 15 matches margin!

Backtrack?
The Sampras example is not right, as I was saying. On Wilander, what I can say is: he has proved he could beat the big guys in big events. He proved it 7 times. Emerson never faced the big guys until 1968. It's funny that according to you there is really no connection with the big ones entering the main fields and his victories record dropping down, seriously.
Wilander had the same fields in 1988 and 1989. Emerson had totally different fields.
Moreover, no one of the tennis historicians or commentators has ever noticed that drastic drop in Emerson's game (simply because there was no drastic drop).

You're still using too much "if". I know that if Emerson had entered the Pro tour many years before, he probably would have had more chances to raise his level, but this is only a theory. Just watch Cooper: 3 out of 4 amateur majors, and then he was totally destroyed on the Pro tour, so were Mal Anderson, Alex Olmedo, and many others.
We will never know if Emerson would have raised his level while facing the Pros as a 25-year old boy: there's the possibility, but it's not sure at all. What we know - the only thing we really know - is that he never faced them until 1968, that he didn't raise his level, and that he was often beaten by older guys, including a 40 years old Pancho Gonzales, on clay (Pancho's weakest surface).

Ok, Pro Majors are NOT the equivalent of full majors. Thank you. Oh, wait... if Pro Majors were so easy tournaments to win, why no clay Pro Majors for Pancho? Duh...
(Just kidding, I know he was still decent on clay, just trying to demonstrate that your attempts to downsize Rosewall can by applied to Pancho Gonzales too).

The first I've answered to.

Click to expand...

Actually, Hoad led by 18 to 8 going into Palm Springs, California, when his back acted up, and he lost that night and the next.
Kramer saw Gonzales the night before Palm Springs, and Gonzales had given up hope.

If you're talking about Sampras, bear in mind that the US Open plays its semifinal the day before the final. It's not easy on any player but especially older players like Sampras was. Sampras also has that disease that affects his stamina. So the losses in the finals to Safin and Hewitt while a credit to both of them for winning, the one sided losses may be due to the tough schedule.

Click to expand...

come on pc1, I can understand fatigue being cited as a reason in 2001 - he had to come through a tough draw, but 2000 ? really ? he barely had to spend 2 hrs on court in the semi ..... he just got blown off by safin ...

and even in 2001, hewitt was just too good , especially in sets 2 and 3 ....

Safin literally destroyed him in 2000. In 2001 he has beaten in sequence Rafter, Agassi, and Safin to reach the final. Emerson never did something similar in 1968. Fact.

Click to expand...

jeez, really, again ? if you'd open your mind up a little and actually think ..... sampras was a clearly better player than emerson, less reliant on legs than him ....... if they had a comparable drop in level, you'd still expect sampras to have clearly better results, would you not ?

again, he was only 35-16 in 2001, winning zero titles .... he ended 2000 @ #3, while he ended 2001 @ #10 ...

Not in my opinion. Of course Emerson was physically stronger in his 20s than in his 30s, but I'm sure that if tennis was still closed to Professional, he would have won a Slam in 1968 also. I mean: losing to Pancho Gonzales, 40 years old, on Pancho's weakest surface, when you're the defending champion... that's enough for me.

Click to expand...

eh, and sampras lost at the AO to todd martin, a player he had completely owned till then ..todd martin ended the year ranked #57 ...

you are that sure emerson would have won a slam in the amateurs in 68 ? beating ashe, newk, roche etc ? well , well, then he wasn't that bad, was he ?

If you'd read it again, you'd notice I was talking about disregarding the ability/strength of a player at his prime and considering post-prime ( & pre-prime ) results and in some cases, saying pre or post prime years were part of heir prime or they were very close to it ..

come on pc1, I can understand fatigue being cited as a reason in 2001 - he had to come through a tough draw, but 2000 ? really ? he barely had to spend 2 hrs on court in the semi ..... he just got blown off by safin ...

and even in 2001, hewitt was just too good , especially in sets 2 and 3 ....

Click to expand...

I just think that in 2000 Safin had one of those matches when everything is going right. But that is not to indicate that Safin was superior to Sampras, we know this because Sampras handled Safin quite well in 2001

I just think that in 2000 Safin had one of those matches when everything is going right. But that is not to indicate that Safin was superior to Sampras, we know this because Sampras handled Safin quite well in 2001

Click to expand...

yeah, not saying safin was superior to sampras ...just that fatigue had no role whatsoever in that final in 2000 ....

also I think sampras was in better form in the 2000 USO than safin in the 2001 USO ..

Who is your pick for the Australian? I haven't seen the top players in action but I guess I would go with Murray. Now watch he'll be slaughtered in his next match. lol.

Click to expand...

Logically , would have to go with djoker ... but hoping fed can take it of course ... would be a bit surprised if anyone other than the top 3 takes it .......tsonga, berdych,delpo,ferrer are contenders, but unlikely unless they are in absolute top form ...

if you'd open your mind up a little and actually think ..... sampras was a clearly better player than emerson, less reliant on legs than him ....... if they had a comparable drop in level

Click to expand...

It was not comparable in my opinion.

again, he was only 35-16 in 2001, winning zero titles .... he ended 2000 @ #3, while he ended 2001 @ #10 ...

Click to expand...

Reaching a Major final by beating in sequence Rafter, Safin and Agassi is enough for me. I repeat, Emerson never did something similar.

eh, and sampras lost at the AO to todd martin, a player he had completely owned till then ..todd martin ended the year ranked #57 ...

Click to expand...

It was not his first loss with low-ranked players, so what?

you are that sure emerson would have won a slam in the amateurs in 68 ? beating ashe, newk, roche etc ? well , well, then he wasn't that bad, was he ?

Click to expand...

Didn't say he was bad, I've said he was not a champion, there's a difference, can you see it? Moreover, without facing the Pro in 1968 their level probably wouldn't have raised... anyway, we are still talking about science fiction, as in the larger part of this discussion.

lol, so emmo losing to a 40-year old gonzales on clay, while gonzales was still within the top 10-15 for sure definitely proves emerson 'sucked' while sampras losing to todd martin who ended the year ranked #57 , the reaction is so what ? LOL !!

Didn't say he was bad, I've said he was not a champion, there's a difference, can you see it? Moreover, without facing the Pro in 1968 their level probably wouldn't have raised... anyway, we are still talking about science fiction, as in the larger part of this discussion.

Click to expand...

yeah, lol, ashe,newk, roche all improved as soon as they joined the pros, but emerson while 'still at his prime' did not, had no significant decline .... and emmo, not a 'champ', but was beating them in the amateurs multiple times ...

and this for 3 players, not just one ... if it is one, maybe you could say an exception ....

indeed that does sound like science fiction to me ...:lol:

reality is emerson's decline was a far more major factor than the beginning of the open era ...

You are just repeating this again and again, but I disapprove that point, so you can stop it. We don't read this in the same way, that's your opinion, not mine.

lol, so emmo losing to a 40-year old gonzales on clay, while gonzales was still within the top 10-15 for sure definitely proves emerson 'sucked'

Click to expand...

Again? Never said that. I've said that Emerson wasn't able to beat Gonzales on his weakest surface when he was 40 years old: with this point I mean that Pancho's (Rosewall's/Laver's/Gimeno's) level in his prime was much higher than Emerson's.

yeah, lol, ashe,newk, roche all improved as soon as they joined the pros, but emerson while 'still at his prime' did not, had no significant decline .... and emmo, not a 'champ', but was beating them in the amateurs multiple times ...

Click to expand...

They were all in the right age to improve by facing a stronger opposition, while Emerson wasn't.

reality is emerson's decline was a far more major factor than the beginning of the open era ...

Click to expand...

Not for me, he was just at the same level: couldn't improve that much because he was too old, but didn't decline neither. He just stayed at his level, that's what I think.

Again? Never said that. I've said that Emerson wasn't able to beat Gonzales on his weakest surface when he was 40 years old: with this point I mean that Pancho's (Rosewall's/Laver's/Gimeno's) level in his prime was much higher than Emerson's.

Not for me, he was just at the same level: couldn't improve that much because he was too old, but didn't decline neither. He just stayed at his level, that's what I think.

Oh, please let's stop this, it's becoming redundant.

Click to expand...

whatever, take another look at your double standards if you can.... you started 'whining' about disrespect when I put rosewall out of the top 5 for peak play & said that djoker would have it easy vs his serve ...

yet you have no qualms while stating that emerson having a physical game, won his first slam in 61 didn't decline much in 68 at all .... in fact you scoffed at the very possibility of him declining from 67 to 68, I gave very clear examples of wilander and sampras , you backtracked regarding the possibility of it and just stated it didn't happen ...

and again, you aren't quoting the full text of what I said, which is far more substantive and probably embarrassing to your arguments ....

you can stop if you want, but stop whining about 'disrespect' to rosewall when I didn't even say anything that much derogatory about him/his play , while you are off blatantly under-rating and under-mining another player - in this case emerson ...

In my opinion he was way stronger than Emerson. I won't start an argument about this also, I'm pretty tired by this discussion.

in fact you scoffed at the very possibility of him declining from 67 to 68, I gave very clear examples of wilander and sampras , you backtracked regarding the possibility of it and just stated it didn't happen ...

Click to expand...

My god, you're just exhausting! Just stop it please, we have different opinions! I've argumented a lot and made tons of examples, we simply don't read it the same way.

you can stop if you want, but stop whining about 'disrespect' to rosewall when I didn't even say anything that much derogatory about him/his play

Click to expand...

You didn't? Just go back at the first post and read it. Now I've had enough.

He declined, but not that much. I repeat, he has beaten Agassi, Rafter and Safin in sequence, that's enough for me.

Click to expand...

yes, a 14 time grand slam champion going from W, F, SF @ 3 of the slams, winning 4 titles including wimbledon to only one slam final the next year , no other QFs at a major, going 35-16 and winning no titles that year ... yeah, sounds like the norm to me ... no big decline ... :roll:

You didn't? Just go back at the first post and read it. Now I've had enough.

Click to expand...

I already said I did. There was nothing that disrespectful ......up to you to stop making a big fuss about that/stop this conversation when you yourself have belittled Emerson quite a bit and now even sampras to an extent !

You are just repeating this again and again, but I disapprove that point, so you can stop it. We don't read this in the same way, that's your opinion, not mine.

Again? Never said that. I've said that Emerson wasn't able to beat Gonzales on his weakest surface when he was 40 years old: with this point I mean that Pancho's (Rosewall's/Laver's/Gimeno's) level in his prime was much higher than Emerson's.

They were all in the right age to improve by facing a stronger opposition, while Emerson wasn't.

Not for me, he was just at the same level: couldn't improve that much because he was too old, but didn't decline neither. He just stayed at his level, that's what I think.

Oh, please let's stop this, it's becoming redundant.

Click to expand...

Didn't Emmo whip Gonzales in Florida?
And was Gimeno still part of the discussion?
Remember, Santana in the sixties was a much hotter product than Gimeno, but the pros could not afford to sign Santana or Emerson, who made more money as amateurs than Laver or Rosewall did as pros!

Oh, and lifetime: Santana won 72 tournaments, Gimeno 46. Santana 4 majors, Gimeno 1. Not even close. And Santana was great in Davis Cup.

He was 8 years younger, is it so strange that he could beat him sometimes?
Gonzales won 12 matches against Emerson in the Open Era, including the biggest one. Isn't that enough?

Oh, and lifetime: Santana won 72 tournaments, Gimeno 46. Santana 4 majors, Gimeno 1. Not even close. And Santana was great in Davis Cup.

Click to expand...

72 tournaments, the majority of which were amateur tournaments with depleted fields, while Gimeno had to front constantly peak-Laver and peak-Rosewall in its circuit, often beating them on clay.
Gimeno was able to reach a semifinal at Wimbledon Open even if he was 33 years old at the time, Santana was one year younger but he never reached a semifinal at Wim. Open.
Gimeno also won the French 1972 and reached the semifinal in 1968. Santana never reached the semifinal at the French Open.
Anyway, Santana won Barcelona 1970, which was the best clay tournament that season, but that's not enough to put him above Gimeno in my opinion.

I'll not answer anymore on Gimeno, that's my opinion (not only mine, I think also BobbyOne considers him better than Santana and Emerson), the world is big enough for both our points of view. Bye bye.

I don't think I ever "insulted" you. My calling your comment "nonsense" might have been blunt and intemperate, but I never attacked you personally.

Stravinsky probably did not say "it's a boogie-woogie" because that term was not known at all in Beethoven's time.

Click to expand...

And that is all the more reason to say Beethoven did not "invent" jazz.

I stay at this: A genius can leap the centuries (you partly agree).

Click to expand...

One would expect the most influential figure in Western music to have been ahead of his time, but again hints of what's to come don't mean the real thing. To (re)use the Leonardo example, his futuristic notes and sketches continue to amaze us, but it's a stretch to say he invented most of the devices he envisioned. Likewise an art form is more than its parts.

I believe you that you can play Beethoven sonatas (I never could do so) but the most important thing in music is to OPEN YOUR SOUL as treblings has done.

Click to expand...

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I do find it ironic that you say this right after namechecking Schoenberg as one of the authorities to support your POV.

I rate Haydn as the Roy Emerson of music: both are very famous but vastly overrated...

Click to expand...

Haydn is a composer's composer, one who is better appreciated by musicians than by laymen like you and me. And just about any respectable classical GOAT list would have him among the top 10. The same can't be said of Emerson in tennis.

In our debate about the demands of the amateur game you acknowledged Tilden's longevity and pointed out that he, too, spent a lot of time in the amateur game. I'm not certain what your inference is there, but we do know that the amateur game in Tilden's time included all the world's best players. Tilden joined the pro tours later, but if we're asking why he could play possibly his best tennis at the advanced age of 31, we're talking about 1924, when all (or perhaps nearly all) of the world's best players were amateurs.

Click to expand...

Tilden's 1924 record is a bit misleading because, like you said, he didn't play all the majors and thus have to face the Four Musketeers, to name one example (or four). Would he have won just about every big event in sight like Laver in '69 with all the big names around? Possible, but historically improbable.

And even if that were true we'd be talking about only two players in the entire history of modern tennis, two whose career trajectory (at least Laver's) and number of prime years doesn't deviate so much from those of other GOATs from Gonzales to Federer. Given these similarities it's reasonable to conclude that Tilden and Laver's seemingly late development was not so much personal than structural, and I say that in Laver's case it is the amateur/pro divide that offers the best explanation.

If Tilden was dominant at a late age that would have more to do with his being a late bloomer, his time spent in military service, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, in Tilden's case military service is probaby a bigger factor than the amateur/pro split (which both of us agree didn't hinder him much), and another one that affected the entire tour, not just him.

Everything was different, then, in any case. Players did not cross the oceans as much as in Laver's time, and when they did they spent entire weeks on ships, without playing tennis. How does that impact longevity?

Tilden also subsisted mostly on steak and potatoes, and smoked heavily. Very different from Laver. So what does that do to the comparison? It just complicates it more.

Click to expand...

I'm actually skeptical that one's diet has such a big impact on his game, and tend to scoff at the notion of today's "advanced" nutrition. Smoking and travel could've been bigger factors.

Just so we're clear I don't deny that any of these variables have some impact. I was talking strictly about the amateur/pro divide with respect to Laver's supposedly late dominance. I never argued that being an amateur would be the biggest factor in all cases.

If you mean that the junior game is less demanding than the "senior" game, you're absolutely correct. But I was not making any arguments about the junior game taking a physical or mental toll on an athlete. I was talking about development. Someone who trains every day as a junior and plays often in competition will develop faster, and reach his peak earlier, than someone who plays much less as a junior.

Click to expand...

I'd say actual play against the world's best can help a budding player mature as fast, if not faster, as any humanly possible amount of training. This is especially true for S&Vers like Rafter, who once admitted that he needed as much actual playing time as time off to get into his net-rushing groove, or something to that effect. And while Laver was more of an all-courter I'd suspect his case was similar.

I disagree, I think the question of playing style has to come into this somehow. Think of Ken Rosewall. The general feeling is that his efficient classical style had everything to do with his great longevity. He was almost never injured -- and that will certainly save the body.

You mentioned Borg, Nadal, Sampras and Federer each having an 8-year span of winning at least one major. But Rosewall started winning majors in '53 and won his last one in '72: a period of 19 years. Even cutting out his amateur majors, he's way ahead of the other champions we mentioned.

Click to expand...

krosero, again I wasn't making any generalization here. I was talking in particular about Laver's annus mirabilis at age 31, and how that is such an outlier in the annals of tennis history if we're to view it in a vacuum. I doubt any knowledgeable tennis fan would dispute your point about Rosewall and his playing style.

And I see I wasn't very clear about my definition of one's "prime years." When I say prime I do mean when the player is in the prime of his career, not any year when he was able to eke out a Slam. Pete and Fed might have won a major in '02 and '12 respectively, but one would hardly call that either one's prime. That's why I made particular mention of the # of years these legends were ranked no. 1, and history indeed shows that this number has remained remarkably constant, between 6-8 years depending on one's own rankings (Borg is the only glaring exception here).

So then we ask about Laver. Why did he win majors as late as 31? Well I don't know exactly, but in a comparison of the playing styles of champions, I think it makes more sense to group him among his peers who played a similar classic style, than it does to group him with the four champions we mentioned from the Open Era. He was no grinder like Borg and Nadal, that's for sure. But he also did less grinding than Federer, who is after all a baseliner. And Pete played an awful lot of baseline tennis, certainly not enough to call him a baseliner, but perhaps more than Laver did.

Pete played more SV tennis as he got older, partly in the realization that the older he got the less he was going to win from the baseline. It's something you hear a lot: grinding is for the youngest legs.

And if that's true -- that net play saves the body as it ages and can extend the prime years of a player -- then how can we ignore that in Laver's time SV was a far more common style than in the Open Era?

Click to expand...

I can see how this can extend a player's longevity, but again history has shown that a GOAT's length of time spent at the top has remained eerily consistent. One would expect this to shorten over time if grinding were such a big factor. And let's not forget that completing the Grand Slam at the nominal age of 31 is the most unlikely achievement by any historical standard.

FWIW I've got Tilden, Laver and Sampras all with 7 year-end no. 1 spots, and Fed with 6. And we know Fed spent pretty much the same amount of time at the top as Pete (I know a few people will make a silly point about the ATP rankings, but that's because they fail to understand the ATP ranking system is just one out of many algorithms). Hardly any significant difference here.

Anyway I just hope we're clearer about each other's argument by now. I don't think there's much disagreement between us.

Didn't Emmo whip Gonzales in Florida?
And was Gimeno still part of the discussion?
Remember, Santana in the sixties was a much hotter product than Gimeno, but the pros could not afford to sign Santana or Emerson, who made more money as amateurs than Laver or Rosewall did as pros!

Oh, and lifetime: Santana won 72 tournaments, Gimeno 46. Santana 4 majors, Gimeno 1. Not even close. And Santana was great in Davis Cup.

Click to expand...

There´s been enormous discussions in Spain about Gimeno being better than Santana or the other way round.it is more a political fight than anything else.

IMO, Santana was a greater champion and Gimeno a more complete player.Had they played DC together, they are the only team in the 60´s able to pull up a fight against the unbeatable aussie squad.And maybe Spain would not have waited till the XXI century to win the cup.

I don't think I ever "insulted" you. My calling your comment "nonsense" might have been blunt and intemperate, but I never attacked you personally.

And that is all the more reason to say Beethoven did not "invent" jazz.

One would expect the most influential figure in Western music to have been ahead of his time, but again hints of what's to come don't mean the real thing. To (re)use the Leonardo example, his futuristic notes and sketches continue to amaze us, but it's a stretch to say he invented most of the devices he envisioned. Likewise an art form is more than its parts.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I do find it ironic that you say this right after namechecking Schoenberg as one of the authorities to support your POV.

Haydn is a composer's composer, one who is better appreciated by musicians than by laymen like you and me. And just about any respectable classical GOAT list would have him among the top 10. The same can't be said of Emerson in tennis.

Tilden's 1924 record is a bit misleading because, like you said, he didn't play all the majors and thus have to face the Four Musketeers, to name one example (or four). Would he have won just about every big event in sight like Laver in '69 with all the big names around? Possible, but historically improbable.

And even if that were true we'd be talking about only two players in the entire history of modern tennis, two whose career trajectory (at least Laver's) and number of prime years doesn't deviate so much from those of other GOATs from Gonzales to Federer. Given these similarities it's reasonable to conclude that Tilden and Laver's seemingly late development was not so much personal than structural, and I say that in Laver's case it is the amateur/pro divide that offers the best explanation.

Yes, in Tilden's case military service is probaby a bigger factor than the amateur/pro split (which both of us agree didn't hinder him much), and another one that affected the entire tour, not just him.

I'm actually skeptical that one's diet has such a big impact on his game, and tend to scoff at the notion of today's "advanced" nutrition. Smoking and travel could've been bigger factors.

Just so we're clear I don't deny that any of these variables have some impact. I was talking strictly about the amateur/pro divide with respect to Laver's supposedly late dominance. I never argued that being an amateur would be the biggest factor in all cases.

I'd say actual play against the world's best can help a budding player mature as fast, if not faster, as any humanly possible amount of training. This is especially true for S&Vers like Rafter, who once admitted that he needed as much actual playing time as time off to get into his net-rushing groove, or something to that effect. And while Laver was more of an all-courter I'd suspect his case was similar.

krosero, again I wasn't making any generalization here. I was talking in particular about Laver's annus mirabilis at age 31, and how that is such an outlier in the annals of tennis history if we're to view it in a vacuum. I doubt any knowledgeable tennis fan would dispute your point about Rosewall and his playing style.

And I see I wasn't very clear about my definition of one's "prime years." When I say prime I do mean when the player is in the prime of his career, not any year when he was able to eke out a Slam. Pete and Fed might have won a major in '02 and '12 respectively, but one would hardly call that either one's prime. That's why I made particular mention of the # of years these legends were ranked no. 1, and history indeed shows that this number has remained remarkably constant, between 6-8 years depending on one's own rankings (Borg is the only glaring exception here).

I can see how this can extend a player's longevity, but again history has shown that a GOAT's length of time spent at the top has remained eerily consistent. One would expect this to shorten over time if grinding were such a big factor. And let's not forget that completing the Grand Slam at the nominal age of 31 is the most unlikely achievement by any historical standard.

FWIW I've got Tilden, Laver and Sampras all with 7 year-end no. 1 spots, and Fed with 6. And we know Fed spent pretty much the same amount of time at the top as Pete (I know a few people will make a silly point about the ATP rankings, but that's because they fail to understand the ATP ranking system is just one out of many algorithms). Hardly any significant difference here.

Anyway I just hope we're clearer about each other's argument by now. I don't think there's much disagreement between us.

Didn't Emmo whip Gonzales in Florida?
And was Gimeno still part of the discussion?
Remember, Santana in the sixties was a much hotter product than Gimeno, but the pros could not afford to sign Santana or Emerson, who made more money as amateurs than Laver or Rosewall did as pros!

Oh, and lifetime: Santana won 72 tournaments, Gimeno 46. Santana 4 majors, Gimeno 1. Not even close. And Santana was great in Davis Cup.

Click to expand...

Expert Dan,

Santana won more tournaments because he stayed amateur (the weaker field) while Gimeno had the courage to face the best players in the world (Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver). It's easier to win tournaments and majors against the likes of Emerson, Stolle and Pietrangeli than against Laver and Rosewall.

It's a shame, Dan, that I and other posters must explain you (again and again) the tennis history's basics.

Long time long talk. Just to repeat I don't think there's much disagreement between me and krosero, but it's about whether the pro/amateur split is the biggest factor in Laver's seemingly late dominance in 1969. I think it is while krosero doesn't. In Tilden's case it's probably his time away from the game, which we saw manifest itself as recently as this past decade in Agassi.

I don't think I ever "insulted" you. My calling your comment "nonsense" might have been blunt and intemperate, but I never attacked you personally.

And that is all the more reason to say Beethoven did not "invent" jazz.

One would expect the most influential figure in Western music to have been ahead of his time, but again hints of what's to come don't mean the real thing. To (re)use the Leonardo example, his futuristic notes and sketches continue to amaze us, but it's a stretch to say he invented most of the devices he envisioned. Likewise an art form is more than its parts.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I do find it ironic that you say this right after namechecking Schoenberg as one of the authorities to support your POV.

Haydn is a composer's composer, one who is better appreciated by musicians than by laymen like you and me. And just about any respectable classical GOAT list would have him among the top 10. The same can't be said of Emerson in tennis.

Tilden's 1924 record is a bit misleading because, like you said, he didn't play all the majors and thus have to face the Four Musketeers, to name one example (or four). Would he have won just about every big event in sight like Laver in '69 with all the big names around? Possible, but historically improbable.

And even if that were true we'd be talking about only two players in the entire history of modern tennis, two whose career trajectory (at least Laver's) and number of prime years doesn't deviate so much from those of other GOATs from Gonzales to Federer. Given these similarities it's reasonable to conclude that Tilden and Laver's seemingly late development was not so much personal than structural, and I say that in Laver's case it is the amateur/pro divide that offers the best explanation.

Yes, in Tilden's case military service is probaby a bigger factor than the amateur/pro split (which both of us agree didn't hinder him much), and another one that affected the entire tour, not just him.

I'm actually skeptical that one's diet has such a big impact on his game, and tend to scoff at the notion of today's "advanced" nutrition. Smoking and travel could've been bigger factors.

Just so we're clear I don't deny that any of these variables have some impact. I was talking strictly about the amateur/pro divide with respect to Laver's supposedly late dominance. I never argued that being an amateur would be the biggest factor in all cases.

I'd say actual play against the world's best can help a budding player mature as fast, if not faster, as any humanly possible amount of training. This is especially true for S&Vers like Rafter, who once admitted that he needed as much actual playing time as time off to get into his net-rushing groove, or something to that effect. And while Laver was more of an all-courter I'd suspect his case was similar.

krosero, again I wasn't making any generalization here. I was talking in particular about Laver's annus mirabilis at age 31, and how that is such an outlier in the annals of tennis history if we're to view it in a vacuum. I doubt any knowledgeable tennis fan would dispute your point about Rosewall and his playing style.

And I see I wasn't very clear about my definition of one's "prime years." When I say prime I do mean when the player is in the prime of his career, not any year when he was able to eke out a Slam. Pete and Fed might have won a major in '02 and '12 respectively, but one would hardly call that either one's prime. That's why I made particular mention of the # of years these legends were ranked no. 1, and history indeed shows that this number has remained remarkably constant, between 6-8 years depending on one's own rankings (Borg is the only glaring exception here).

I can see how this can extend a player's longevity, but again history has shown that a GOAT's length of time spent at the top has remained eerily consistent. One would expect this to shorten over time if grinding were such a big factor. And let's not forget that completing the Grand Slam at the nominal age of 31 is the most unlikely achievement by any historical standard.

FWIW I've got Tilden, Laver and Sampras all with 7 year-end no. 1 spots, and Fed with 6. And we know Fed spent pretty much the same amount of time at the top as Pete (I know a few people will make a silly point about the ATP rankings, but that's because they fail to understand the ATP ranking system is just one out of many algorithms). Hardly any significant difference here.

Anyway I just hope we're clearer about each other's argument by now. I don't think there's much disagreement between us.

Click to expand...

NonP, Your statement that it's thus the more reason Beethoven did not invent Jazz because that name was not known in Beethoven's time, is beyond my understanding and logic. It's your own, special logic!

A person can invent a new thing or music or religion or wharever decades or centuries before it is reinvented by others, even though the first inventor does not know or use the invention's name of the later time (sorry for my English). We talk about the thing not about it's name!!!

It's easy to understand: Beethoven invented Jazz but did not give that new music the name Jazz which was an American name of later generations. You can't deny LvB this his genial invention.

Long time long talk. Just to repeat I don't think there's much disagreement between me and krosero, but it's about whether the pro/amateur split is the biggest factor in Laver's seemingly late dominance in 1969. I think it is while krosero doesn't. In Tilden's case it's probably his time away from the game, which we saw manifest itself as recently as this past decade in Agassi.

Click to expand...

Okay. Just wondering. You both are very rational posters and I was curious what the disagreement was about but apparently there was none.

I don't think I ever "insulted" you. My calling your comment "nonsense" might have been blunt and intemperate, but I never attacked you personally.

And that is all the more reason to say Beethoven did not "invent" jazz.

One would expect the most influential figure in Western music to have been ahead of his time, but again hints of what's to come don't mean the real thing. To (re)use the Leonardo example, his futuristic notes and sketches continue to amaze us, but it's a stretch to say he invented most of the devices he envisioned. Likewise an art form is more than its parts.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I do find it ironic that you say this right after namechecking Schoenberg as one of the authorities to support your POV.

Haydn is a composer's composer, one who is better appreciated by musicians than by laymen like you and me. And just about any respectable classical GOAT list would have him among the top 10. The same can't be said of Emerson in tennis.

Tilden's 1924 record is a bit misleading because, like you said, he didn't play all the majors and thus have to face the Four Musketeers, to name one example (or four). Would he have won just about every big event in sight like Laver in '69 with all the big names around? Possible, but historically improbable.

And even if that were true we'd be talking about only two players in the entire history of modern tennis, two whose career trajectory (at least Laver's) and number of prime years doesn't deviate so much from those of other GOATs from Gonzales to Federer. Given these similarities it's reasonable to conclude that Tilden and Laver's seemingly late development was not so much personal than structural, and I say that in Laver's case it is the amateur/pro divide that offers the best explanation.

Yes, in Tilden's case military service is probaby a bigger factor than the amateur/pro split (which both of us agree didn't hinder him much), and another one that affected the entire tour, not just him.

I'm actually skeptical that one's diet has such a big impact on his game, and tend to scoff at the notion of today's "advanced" nutrition. Smoking and travel could've been bigger factors.

Just so we're clear I don't deny that any of these variables have some impact. I was talking strictly about the amateur/pro divide with respect to Laver's supposedly late dominance. I never argued that being an amateur would be the biggest factor in all cases.

I'd say actual play against the world's best can help a budding player mature as fast, if not faster, as any humanly possible amount of training. This is especially true for S&Vers like Rafter, who once admitted that he needed as much actual playing time as time off to get into his net-rushing groove, or something to that effect. And while Laver was more of an all-courter I'd suspect his case was similar.

krosero, again I wasn't making any generalization here. I was talking in particular about Laver's annus mirabilis at age 31, and how that is such an outlier in the annals of tennis history if we're to view it in a vacuum. I doubt any knowledgeable tennis fan would dispute your point about Rosewall and his playing style.

And I see I wasn't very clear about my definition of one's "prime years." When I say prime I do mean when the player is in the prime of his career, not any year when he was able to eke out a Slam. Pete and Fed might have won a major in '02 and '12 respectively, but one would hardly call that either one's prime. That's why I made particular mention of the # of years these legends were ranked no. 1, and history indeed shows that this number has remained remarkably constant, between 6-8 years depending on one's own rankings (Borg is the only glaring exception here).

I can see how this can extend a player's longevity, but again history has shown that a GOAT's length of time spent at the top has remained eerily consistent. One would expect this to shorten over time if grinding were such a big factor. And let's not forget that completing the Grand Slam at the nominal age of 31 is the most unlikely achievement by any historical standard.

FWIW I've got Tilden, Laver and Sampras all with 7 year-end no. 1 spots, and Fed with 6. And we know Fed spent pretty much the same amount of time at the top as Pete (I know a few people will make a silly point about the ATP rankings, but that's because they fail to understand the ATP ranking system is just one out of many algorithms). Hardly any significant difference here.

Anyway I just hope we're clearer about each other's argument by now. I don't think there's much disagreement between us.

Click to expand...

Sorry for double posting this.

NonP, Your statement that it's thus the more reason Beethoven did not invent Jazz because that name was not known in Beethoven's time, is beyond my understanding and logic. It's your own, special logic!

A person can invent a new thing or music or religion or whatever decades or centuries before it is reinvented by others, even though the first inventor does not know or use the invention's name of the later time (sorry for my English). We talk about the thing itself not about it's name!!!

It's easy: Beethoven invented Jazz but did not give that new music the name Jazz which was an American name of later generations. You can't deny LvB this his genial invention.

NonP, Your statement that it's thus the more reason Beethoven did not invent Jazz because that name was not known in Beethoven's time, is beyond my understanding and logic. It's your own, special logic!

A person can invent a new thing or music or religion or wharever decades or centuries before it is reinvented by others, even though the first inventor does not know or use the invention's name of the later time (sorry for my English). We talk about the thing not about it's name!!!

It's easy to understand: Beethoven invented Jazz but did not give that new music the name Jazz which was an American name of later generations. You can't deny LvB this his genial invention.

Click to expand...

I was not talking just about the name. For the umpteenth time, an invention is more than its parts. You're still confusing jazziness with jazz.

NonP, You are a little liar: You yet answered: "Thus the more it's reason that Beethoven did not "invent" Jazz" as a reply to my words that Stravinsky did not called it Boogie-Woogie because that term was not known in Beethoven's time. Please stay honest!

Why should I change my mind about Betthoven#s invention. I'm old enough and have heard enough classic and Jazz mucic to be able to differ between "jazziness" and "jazz"...

NonP, You are a little liar: You yet answered: "Thus the more it's reason that Beethoven did not "invent" Jazz" as a reply to my words that Stravinsky did not called it Boogie-Woogie because that term was not known in Beethoven's time. Please stay honest!

Click to expand...

You would be on better grounds to call me a "liar" if that's the only thing I said about this whole question of invention. I didn't. Calm down and read more carefully.

Why should I change my mind about Betthoven#s invention. I'm old enough and have heard enough classic and Jazz mucic to be able to differ between "jazziness" and "jazz"...

Click to expand...

Look, you're the same one who thinks Haydn is the Roy Emerson of "classic" "mucic," so excuse me for not thinking so highly of your self-proclaimed expertise. And I never even said you should change your mind, as you're wont to do regarding your idol Rosewall all the time.

You would be on better grounds to call me a "liar" if that's the only thing I said about this whole question of invention. I didn't. Calm down and read more carefully.

Look, you're the same one who thinks Haydn is the Roy Emerson of "classic" "mucic," so excuse me for not thinking so highly of your self-proclaimed expertise. And I never even said you should change your mind, as you're wont to do regarding your idol Rosewall all the time.

Click to expand...

NonP, I'm sorry for "liar" but I have clearly shown that you have changed your mind within of a few minutes (I have quoted your words). I use to read the words of posters very carefully...

Your high opinion of unfeeling Haydn shows me that you have not been impressed by classic music that much. You probably have not "understood" Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert...

The next changing of your mind: You yet have insinuated I should change my opinion. Every reader can read your words clearly.

You have not understood my admiration for Rosewall. I never admired Muscles alone. I also admire Laver, Gonzalez,Roche, Tilden, Vines, Nüsslein, Kovacs, Segura, Gimeno and others. I specially admire those who are underrated by the fans and experts.

Nadal may belong already but I prefer to err on the side of caution. Not sure about Novak Djokovic yet in the top ten. His peak is one of the best but again I prefer to wait.

Click to expand...

Rafa should be in there if we're going to include anyone other than the Magnificent Seven (Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras & Federer).

Nole I agree is not there yet. I frankly must say, as a fan, that his peak tends to be overrated these days. I'm fairly confident that Pete & Fed had a higher gear than Novak, and that if they were to play each other in that fantasy matchup series Nole would have a losing record, however slight the margin might be. And trust me, I was one of his biggest supporters long before most of us had even heard of him.

NonP, I'm sorry for "liar" but I have clearly shown that you have changed your mind within of a few minutes (I have quoted your words). I use to read the words of posters very carefully...

Click to expand...

I haven't changed my tune a bit. I clearly made an additional point or two after the comment you referred to.

Your high opinion of unfeeling Haydn shows me that you have not been impressed by classic music that much. You probably have not "understood" Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert...

Click to expand...

Actually Hadyn is not one of my favorites, and Bach is hands down the GOAT in my book, with Mozart and Beethoven right behind (though I find much of Wolfgang's oeuvre too polite and innocuous). Schubert is somewhere in the top 10 but not in the same exalted group. Still I'd never say a composer's of Haydn's importance and invention was some kind of a second-rate mug. Same thing with Wagner whose music often bores me to tears.

The next changing of your mind: You yet have insinuated I should change my opinion. Every reader can read your words clearly.

Click to expand...

When you try to persuade the implicit purpose is to change the audience's opinion. When it became clear that you would not change yours I simply suggested that we agree to disagree. There was nothing muddled about my position.

You have not understood my admiration for Rosewall. I never admired Muscles alone. I also admire Laver, Gonzalez,Roche, Tilden, Vines, Nüsslein, Kovacs, Segura, Gimeno and others. I specially admire those who are underrated by the fans and experts.

Click to expand...

That's not what I was talking about. Anyway it's best not to get into it here, as this "discussion" has taken on a life of its own where it shouldn't have.

NonP, I'm sorry for "liar" but I have clearly shown that you have changed your mind within of a few minutes (I have quoted your words). I use to read the words of posters very carefully...

Your high opinion of unfeeling Haydn shows me that you have not been impressed by classic music that much. You probably have not "understood" Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert...

The next changing of your mind: You yet have insinuated I should change my opinion. Every reader can read your words clearly.

You have not understood my admiration for Rosewall. I never admired Muscles alone. I also admire Laver, Gonzalez,Roche, Tilden, Vines, Nüsslein, Kovacs, Segura, Gimeno and others. I specially admire those who are underrated by the fans and experts.

Click to expand...

Then you must admire Kodes and Stolle who are underrated
Kodes equals Vines while Stolly doubles Roche whom he baggeled in the RG final that, of course, Stolle won

Rafa should be in there if we're going to include anyone other than the Magnificent Seven (Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras & Federer).

Nole I agree is not there yet. I frankly must say, as a fan, that his peak tends to be overrated these days. I'm fairly confident that Pete & Fed had a higher gear than Novak, and that if they were to play each other in that fantasy matchup series Nole would have a losing record, however slight the margin might be. And trust me, I was one of his biggest supporters long before most of us had even heard of him.

I haven't changed my tune a bit. I clearly made an additional point or two after the comment you referred to.

Actually Hadyn is not one of my favorites, and Bach is hands down the GOAT in my book, with Mozart and Beethoven right behind (though I find much of Wolfgang's oeuvre too polite and innocuous). Schubert is somewhere in the top 10 but not in the same exalted group. Still I'd never say a composer's of Haydn's importance and invention was some kind of a second-rate mug. Same thing with Wagner whose music often bores me to tears.

When you try to persuade the implicit purpose is to change the audience's opinion. When it became clear that you would not change yours I simply suggested that we agree to disagree. There was nothing muddled about my position.

That's not what I was talking about. Anyway it's best not to get into it here, as this "discussion" has taken on a life of its own where it shouldn't have.

Click to expand...

It's hard to say with Djokovic because his great year of 2011 was superior to any year Sampras has had. It's up there with any year in the Open Year. Do I think Djokovic is as skilled as Sampras? Maybe not but one major thing that Djokovic has over almost anyone in the Open Era is his unbelievable backhand. He can do far more off the backhand than Sampras, Federer, Becker, Lendl and I believe Nadal in my opinion. To me that is huge because obviously hitting the backhand is a major part of your groundies. I think one of the great reasons that Djokovic is so mobility is that he doesn't have to cheat to cover his backhand as many players do to hit an offensive shot but he can do that easily with his backhand. I've seen Federer, despite his excellent mobility get burnt by shots to the open forehand side because he's moved over to his backhand side to hit his excellent backhand.

Djokovic can attack off shots to the backhand that most players would have to play defensively. I've seen very few in the Open Era that can do that as well as Djokovic. I think Connors, Borg, Rosewall and Laver did it on the same level but very few.

He's up there but I feel he's vastly overrated because so many in the past have called him the GOAT and I don't see it judging by his record. I guess if I have Segura there I should put Budge there. Actually Riggs should be there also. I'll change it.

It's hard to say with Djokovic because his great year of 2011 was superior to any year Sampras has had. It's up there with any year in the Open Year. Do I think Djokovic is as skilled as Sampras? Maybe not but one major thing that Djokovic has over almost anyone in the Open Era is his unbelievable backhand. He can do far more off the backhand than Sampras, Federer, Becker, Lendl and I believe Nadal in my opinion. To me that is huge because obviously hitting the backhand is a major part of your groundies.

Click to expand...

I can see NonP's point .... while Novak's 2011 is superior to any year sampras had, I think NonP was referring to more to match wise peak ... and let's not forget that one point could've shifted Novak's 2011 from an ATG season to just a very very good season ... ( fed had MPs vs him @ the USO )

I think one of the great reasons that Djokovic is so mobility is that he doesn't have to cheat to cover his backhand as many players do to hit an offensive shot but he can do that easily with his backhand.

Djokovic can attack off shots to the backhand that most players would have to play defensively. I've seen very few in the Open Era that can do that as well as Djokovic. I think Connors, Borg, Rosewall and Laver did it on the same level but very few.

FWIW I've got Tilden, Laver and Sampras all with 7 year-end no. 1 spots, and Fed with 6. And we know Fed spent pretty much the same amount of time at the top as Pete (I know a few people will make a silly point about the ATP rankings, but that's because they fail to understand the ATP ranking system is just one out of many algorithms). Hardly any significant difference here.

Click to expand...

Are you giving 1999 to sampras and 2003 to fed ? based on level on play in select tournaments ?

even leaving aside the ATP algorithms, any other fair system considering the whole year would probably give those to agassi and roddick ..... (fed would be closer to roddick than sampras to agassi )

I can see NonP's point .... while Novak's 2011 is superior to any year sampras had, I think NonP was referring to more to match wise peak ... and let's not forget that one point could've shifted Novak's 2011 from an ATG season to just a very very good season ... ( fed had MPs vs him @ the USO )

that is true ..

very rarely happened at the peak of his powers .... players used to fear going to the FH wing ... only post-prime federer with major decline in movement to his right, that is the case

NonP, You are a little liar: You yet answered: "Thus the more it's reason that Beethoven did not "invent" Jazz" as a reply to my words that Stravinsky did not called it Boogie-Woogie because that term was not known in Beethoven's time. Please stay honest!

Why should I change my mind about Betthoven#s invention. I'm old enough and have heard enough classic and Jazz mucic to be able to differ between "jazziness" and "jazz"...

Click to expand...

the only two musical genious of the 20 century were miles Davis and Jimmy Page.They are in the same league as Beethoven and Mozart since music was never the same after their work.